Prince questioned in Dianna plot

by **heyjt** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:25 pm

I have heard many reasons why Dianna may have been killed, the least of which is so the Prince could re-marry. Her work on landmine issues, the fact that she was allegedly pregnant at the time of her death (which could have potentially put someone of Arab heritage close to the throne) and others. Antiaristo or others, any further thought? Text below: The Sunday Times - Britain The Sunday Times December 11, 2005 Yard calls on Charles over death of Diana David Leppard THE Prince of Wales has been formally interviewed by Scotland Yard detectives investigating the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in a Paris car crash in 1997. Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan police commissioner, saw the prince at Clarence House last week to question him for several hours about the events that led up to the death of his former wife. The prince’s spokesman declined to release details of the interview, but it is known that Stevens had planned to ask Charles about his response to the bizarre allegation that he had been part of a plot to murder Diana. Claims of the murder plot are contained in a letter by Diana stating that Charles and his friends had been plotting her death. The letter is an exhibit in the inquiry which was ordered two years ago by Michael Burgess, the royal coroner. In her letter, full details of which were published on the day the inquest opened in January 2004, the princess wrote: “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury — to make the path clear for him to marry.” Although the car crash that killed the princess has been exhaustively investigated by the French authorities, Burgess ordered his own police investigation to help to separate “fact from fiction and speculation”. The inquiry was duty bound to confront the prince with the allegation contained in the letter which Paul Burrell, Diana’s former butler, said she wrote 10 months before her death. A spokesman for Charles said yesterday: “Clarence House can confirm that Lord Stevens met the Prince of Wales recently as part of his inquiry into the death of the Princess of Wales. Obviously we are not going to comment in any way on the detail. But we don’t want to mislead anyone. We’ve got nothing to hide. We always said he would talk to Lord Stevens and I can confirm that that has now taken place.” A well placed official said that there were no plans for any further interviews between Stevens and the prince. Friends of the prince believe that the interview and inquiry will enable him to put paid to the conspiracy theories. “Hopefully this will allow Charles to put it all behind him,” said a source close to the prince. “He and the two princes deserve to move on.” The princess and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, the son of Mohamed al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, the London store, died after their chauffeur-driven Mercedes lost control as it was being pursued by photographers in a Paris road tunnel. Their driver, Henri Paul, was killed and the couple’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was critically injured. A lengthy investigation by French police concluded that the death was an accident. It placed the sole blame on Paul and said he was under the influence of drink and drugs. The 8,000-page French report has failed to satisfy the conspiracy theorists, led by Fayed. He has claimed that the princess and his son were victims of a plot orchestrated by the Duke of Edinburgh and carried out by the British intelligence services. The Stevens team has had access to MI5 and MI6 files relating to Diana and has interviewed officers in both services. It is understood that it has established that Fayed’s claims are groundless. Some of Diana’s friends have suggested that if the letter suspecting a plot is authentic it was written years, not months, before her death and thus cannot be taken as evidence of a conspiracy. The prince’s interview marks the final stage of the investigation, believed to have cost more than £2.5m. Stevens’s report is expected to be finished by the spring and the inquest could be resumed.

by **slimmouse** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:44 pm

End of story. I wouldnt hold too much hope out for any justice though. I think this is simply for public consumption, given that apparently over 90% of the British public believe she was assassinated. But of course, being the eternal optimist, I guess we must live in hope - whilst not holding our breath. Dianas death - method,and particularly location bears all the hallmarks of a secret society hit. Not to mention any number of motives.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:34 pm

heyjt, There was one overriding reason: The Treason Felony Act, which is the de facto British constitution, has no meaning and would fall away if there is no queen. The thuggish, Masonic elite would lose their legal stranglehold on the people. But that's not what this is about. Under English law where any subject dies an unnatural death, there must be a coroners inquest. That includes deaths overseas. At some point all this stalling will really have to stop, and they really will have to have that inquest. But the plan is that by that point Charles will be King and (MUCH more important) Cammilla will be Queen. In which case they will find some reason why it is not appropriate to hold such an inquest until after all those involved are dead. They fear an inquest for two reasons. First, there are many interested parties with evidence to give. There are so many scandals lurking beneath the surface. They tried to frame Paul Burrel in order to kill the credibility of "Diana's rock". Charles has systematically destroyed James Hewitt. Second, all evidence must be given UNDER OATH. This is a huge problem for such a conspiracy. To get some idea of how big a problem this is, look back to the death of Dr David Kelly. How did they get round it? They went through not one, but two loopholes. First they went through the loophole that allows an inquiry to substitute for an inquest. So no inquest, despite all the sredible calls for same. Then they went through the loophole that allows evidence to be given to an inquiry to be unsworn. The net effect of all this is that the wholly discredited Hutton pronounced Kelly's death as suicide without having taken a word of evidence. That's how you get round these inconvenient laws. As for Diana, well, it's only eight years. My own inquiry, Aldous and Kaye, has been suppressed for eleven years.

by **slimmouse** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There was one overriding reason: The Treason Felony Act, which is the de facto British constitution, has no meaning and would fall away if there is no queen. The thuggish, Masonic elite would lose their legal stranglehold on the people.<hr></blockquote> QUTB, Proldic, and co. Are you reading this ? If I might add. The "madman" David Icke said in the first book of his I ever read, that the Satanic elite that rule us, whilst keeping their societies as male only institutions, are ultimately worshipping a female deity. Coincidence no doubt. But of course, theres only one "Queen Bee" ( pardon the deliberate pun ). Hence Di had to go. Especially when the peoples Princess was exactly that, BUT stood for the common people as opposed to the evil that rules us all. "Id rather be down here with the people than up there with them" "They arent human, you know" Both Diana quotes. Id like to go into this in greater detail, but suggest you ignore even "consensus" parapolitical thinking and at least read some of his ( Ickes ) stuff. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 12/11/05 9:01 pm

by **antiaristo** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:02 am

Heh. slim, this one is for you. I'm agnostic on this stuff, but the connection is fascinating. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The legend of the Monster of Glamis relates to somewhere around the turn of the 18th/19th centuries, when a grotesque and bloated monster was born to be Heir of Glamis. Completely misshapen, he had no neck, very small arms and legs, and looked like "a flabby egg", half-human, half-monster. In spite of such deformities he is said to have been immensely strong and is reputed to have lived for nearly 150 years, some people thinking that he finally died in 1921. He lived in a special room at the castle, where he was kept from everybody's eye. His existence was known to only four men at one time, the Earl of Strathmore, his heir, the family lawyer and the factor of the estate. At the age of 21 each succeeding heir was told the secret and shown the rightful Earl. Succeeding family lawyers and factors were also told of the secret, but at any one time no more than four knew of the existence of the Monster. As no Countess of Strathmore was ever told the story, one Lady Strathmore, having heard rumours approach the then factor, Mr Ralston, who flatly refused to reveal the secret saying "it is fortunate you do not know the truth for if you did you would never be happy", a reference presumably to the unhappy state of several Earls of Strathmore during the suspected lifetime of the Monster. Even now it is suspected that the remains of the Monster are still retained in the secret room. Mr Ralston, who was described as a shrewd, hard-headed Scot, would never sleep in the castle under any circumstances. One night, when he had worked late, a sudden snowstorm came on. Pressed to stay for the night he refused to do so and insisted that a path be dug in the snow to his house nearly a mile away. Offering strength to the belief of a hideous monster being born into the family, is a portrait hung in the drawing-room. It depicts a previous Earl of Strathmore with his two sons and an indescribably ugly deformed dwarf.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread98775/pg1">www.abovetopsecret.com/fo...d98775/pg1</a> For those that don't get it, this is the ancestral home of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, aka the Queen Mother. She married Bertie (later King George VI) in 1923. The ramifications are profound!

by **jenz** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:02 am

an aside from this main question is that it was the same man who blew the whistle on Aitken ( his story about having been in Paris for family reason, when in fact doing a spot of arms dealing). Some time after Aitken pleaded poverty (so unable to reimburse Guardian), I saw one report about his having a well stuffed swiss bank acoount, but then that story I found no more. anyone know where it went? also at recent lit. fest. in UK Jonathon was spotted having tea with Guardian editor, so obv. all is forgiven. Though I can't see how this could join up to the death in the merc. I am interested by the co-incidence of Diana having irritated arms traders by outspoken defence of limbless children, and hotel having been the rdv for arms trading, and the fate of the proprietor's son. like there should be a connection if only one could fathom it.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:36 am

heyjt, I should have posted this with my first comment. I sent this to LORD STEVENS nearly two years ago. Why do you think he's been given a peerage? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sir John Stevens Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Correos certificado 05291ES) 12 January 2004 Diana Spencer Inquest Dear Sir, Further to my copy letter to Sir Michael Peat of 16 November 2002. I understand you have been charged by royal coroner Michael Burgess to look into the possibility that Diana’s death was other than a simple traffic accident. I have information that may be of assistance when making your enquiries. My information concerns motive. Why would anyone want to murder the princess? And my answer is, the Treason Felony Act of 1848, as re-affirmed on 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales, viz: 3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies ...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life. As you can see, this law grants unlimited powers to our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. So long as Diana was alive Charles was not free to marry. If Charles wanted these dictatorial powers for himself he had first to be rid of his wife once and for all. I’m afraid it has all happened before (in 1936 and 1952) and not only with Henry VIII. Yours faithfully, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Mrs E. Windsor (ref. your Coronation Oath sworn 2 June 1953) Michael Burgess<hr></blockquote> {From "second batch" in Data Dump}

by **emad** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:21 pm

and former MI5 CEO Stella Rimington. Mario Testino's pic of the third Diana that was 'seeded' into the UK House of Windsor by the Thatcher/Reagan/Bush1 triumvirate: <a href="http://www.hrp.org.uk/Images/989C89_MarioTestino.jpg">www.hrp.org.uk/Images/989...estino.jpg</a> Stella Rimington pic: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/media/stella_rimington.jpg">www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/woma...ington.jpg</a> Both the other Diana predecessors were bumped off and replaced as and when necessary. The current trash that is starring in the House of Windsor's pathetic role of "Prince William" is also a changeling after the first one was killed by Charles. Prince Trashboy: <a href="http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/princes/william/images/william_testino2.jpg">www.princeofwales.gov.uk/...stino2.jpg</a> He is Heather Mills McCartney's son by Alex Gelli, IRA gangster son of Bush1's idiot son Henry Gelli. Guess they ran out of Diana clones by the time Poodle was installed in his Poodle Parlour at No 10 Downing Street. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=emad@rigorousintuition>emad</A> at: 12/13/05 10:27 am

Prince questioned in Dianna plot

Prince questioned in Dianna plot

Diana was Whacked.

Re: Prince questioned in Dianna plot

Now heres some REAL analysis .

Re: Prince questioned in Dianna plot

dodi's dad

Re: Prince questioned in Dianna plot

The Diana that died was the daughter of George Herbert Bush

Who is online